Extreme Learning Machine Based System for DDoS Attacks Detections on IoMT Devices

Lily Dzamesi; Murat Ozer; Nelly Elsayed; Zag ElSayed

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Extreme Learning Machine Based System for DDoS Attacks Detections on IoMT Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single-hidden-layer network trained by one pseudoinverse pass can detect DDoS attacks on IoMT traffic with about 95% accuracy, offering a low-resource detection option for constrained medical networks.

desk verdict Routine ELM benchmark with likely test-set leakage in feature selection; the headline accuracy is not yet trustworthy, but the paper is a legitimate candidate for revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05132 v1 pith:Q4JYLREP submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CR

Nelly Elsayed , Lily Dzamesi , Zag ElSayed , Murat Ozer This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CR

keywords extremelearningmachineDDoSdetectionInternetofMedicalThingsIoMTsecurityintrusionCICIoMT2024fogcomputinglow-resource

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish that an extreme learning machine—a single-hidden-layer neural network trained in one analytical pass—can reliably separate benign from attack traffic in Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) networks, reporting 94.87% accuracy on the CICIoMT2024 benchmark. The motivation is practical: medical devices are resource-constrained, life-critical, and increasingly hit by DDoS attacks, so detection must be both accurate and cheap to run. The paper argues that because the ELM is non-iterative, it can be trained quickly and deployed at the fog layer, the intermediate computing tier between devices and the cloud, where heavier deep-learning models are not feasible. If the result holds, healthcare networks gain a lightweight, real-time DDoS detector that costs little to implement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the extreme learning machine (ELM): a single-hidden-layer feedforward network whose input weights and biases are fixed randomly, and whose output weights are solved in closed form as $\beta = H^{\dagger} T$, where $H$ is the hidden-layer output matrix and $H^{\dagger}$ is its pseudoinverse. This makes training non-iterative—a single matrix computation replaces backpropagation—which is what produces the claimed training speed and small implementation budget. The rest of the pipeline uses correlation-based feature selection, dropping features with absolute correlation below 0.02, followed by z-score normalization before the ELM classifies traffic as benign or attack.

What would settle it

Re-run the identical ELM pipeline on the same dataset with feature selection applied only to the training portion, or moved inside the cross-validation folds, and compare held-out accuracy; if the 94.87% figure drops substantially, the central claim is inflated by using test information during feature selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the CICIoMT2024 benchmark—a realistic IoMT testbed with 40 devices and 18 attack types grouped into five families—an ELM classifier with correlation-based feature selection and z-score normalization reaches 94.87% accuracy, with precision, recall, and F1-score all near 0.95 and an AUC-ROC of 0.945. The paper presents this as evidence that a non-iterative, single-hidden-layer classifier can match the practical utility of far heavier deep models on IoMT attack detection while needing much less training time, memory, and tuning, making it suitable for execution at the fog level. In the comparative analysis, the model is positioned against baselines whose overall accuracy is high but per-class precision and recall are poor, or whose accuracy is only a few points higher but whose resource demands are substantially larger.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 94.87% accuracy assumes the evaluation is leak-free, but the paper describes choosing features by their correlation with the target before dividing the data into training and testing sets, so the test labels could have influenced which features were kept.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An ELM-based detector can be trained and retrained in a single pass, making it practical for fog-level and edge deployment on IoMT networks.
At 0.95 recall, the model is claimed to catch most attack traffic while keeping false alarms near 5%, which matters in clinical settings where missed attacks can be life-threatening.
The model provides a lightweight accuracy baseline on CICIoMT2024 that future IoMT intrusion-detection work can compare against.
Because ELM requires fewer tunable hyperparameters than deep networks, the reported approach can be re-implemented and validated on other IoMT traffic datasets at low cost.
The comparison implies ELM trades a few accuracy points (94.87% versus 97–99% for deep hybrids) for a large reduction in training and memory requirements, positioning it for resource-constrained devices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A leak-free replication would likely lower the reported accuracy; the size of the drop would show how much of the 94.87% is due to feature-selection leakage versus genuine signal.
The single-pass learning rule could be extended to online or sequential updates so the detector adapts to new attack types without full retraining, a direction the paper does not explore.
The paper reports aggregate metrics; per-category results across the five DDoS, DoS, MQTT, Recon, and Spoofing families would reveal whether accuracy is uniform or driven by the most frequent attack types.
Deployment evidence on actual constrained hardware—measuring inference latency, RAM, and power—would test the claimed fog-level suitability more directly than accuracy alone.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a textbook ELM application to the new CICIoMT2024 benchmark, and the headline 95% accuracy is probably optimistic because the feature-selection step peeks at the test set. The resource claim is asserted, not measured. The paper is otherwise straightforward and readable, and the topic is timely, but the evaluation needs to be redone before the numbers can be trusted.

What's actually there: the authors train an extreme learning machine for binary DDoS/normal classification on 476k samples from CICIoMT2024. ELM is a well-established fast classifier, and the paper correctly cites prior ELM-based IDS work (including ELM for IoMT), so the novelty is mainly 'new dataset.' That's acceptable for a benchmark study, and the comparison table with other published results on CICIoMT2024 is useful, even if cross-paper comparisons are loose.

The main soft spot is the pipeline order in Section IV-B. Correlation-based feature selection is described before the 80/20 split. If the correlation with the target is computed on all 476,150 samples, test labels get used to pick features, which can inflate held-out accuracy — especially with a weak 0.02 threshold and many candidate features. The normalization step is also ambiguous: the text places the split before StandardScaler, but that should be explicit. This is not a fatal flaw, but the 94.87% figure isn't established as written.

Second issue: 'minimal training time and implementation resources' is asserted, never measured. No CPU time, memory, model size, or selected feature count. For a paper whose selling point is low-budget deployment, that's a missing key result.

Third: reproducibility. No hidden-layer size, activation function, or random seed are reported. Minor language and formatting slips (e.g., 'compromises' in Section III, 'Table ??' in Section IV-C) need copyediting.

The citations are fine; self-citations are for prior ELM work and don't carry the argument.

Who this is for: readers wanting a quick sanity check on whether ELM competes on a recent IoMT IDS benchmark. They'll get a plausible yes, but the numbers are provisional. The paper deserves a serious referee; my recommendation is major revision — move feature selection and normalization inside the training folds, report actual resource measurements, and give the hyperparameters. Without that, the result is only suggestive.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an extreme learning machine (ELM) classifier for detecting DDoS attacks on Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) traffic. Using the CICIoMT2024 benchmark (476,150 samples), the authors apply cleaning, correlation-based feature selection (threshold 0.02), z-score normalization, an 80/20 split, and an ELM with a randomly initialized hidden layer whose output weights are obtained via the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse. They report 94.87% accuracy, 0.95 precision, 0.95 recall, 0.95 F1, and 0.945 AUC-ROC, and claim the approach requires a minimal implementation budget, making it suitable for fog-level IoMT deployment. The paper includes a comparison with several prior DDoS detection models.

Significance. The potential value of the paper is real: an ELM-based detector with single-pass training would be a plausible fit for resource-constrained IoMT/fog environments, and the paper uses a recent public IoMT-specific benchmark. The strengths are the use of an externally available dataset and a clear application motivation. However, the significance of the empirical claim depends entirely on a leakage-free evaluation; the current protocol undermines the headline numbers. The 'low implementation budget' claim, which is part of the abstract and conclusion, is supported only by qualitative assertions and not by measurements. If the authors re-run the experiments with a leakage-free pipeline and provide resource measurements, the work could be a useful empirical baseline.

major comments (4)

[Section IV-B] The text states that 'the correlation of each feature with the target class was determined' and features with absolute correlation below 0.02 were discarded, and this appears before the sentence describing the 80/20 split. If the correlation is computed on the full 476,150-sample dataset, the test labels can influence which features are retained, which is a label leak. Because Table III reports 94.87% accuracy, 0.95 precision/recall/F1, and 0.945 AUC-ROC on that test set, this leak can directly inflate every headline metric. Please repeat feature selection using only the training portion (ideally inside each cross-validation fold) and report the resulting metrics.
[Section IV-B] The same paragraph applies z-score normalization with StandardScaler before the split is described. Fitting the scaler on the full dataset transfers test-set means and standard deviations into the training pipeline; while less severe than label leakage, it still invalidates the strict holdout protocol. Fit the scaler on the training split only and report whether the metrics change.
[Section IV-C and Conclusion] The central claim that the approach requires 'minimal training time and implementation resources' is not measured. The manuscript reports no wall-clock training time, inference latency, memory usage, CPU usage, number of hidden neurons, selected feature count, or random seed. It also does not report the final hyperparameters chosen by GridSearchCV (number of neurons, activation function, correlation threshold). Without these measurements, the low-budget claim is an unsupported assertion rather than an empirical finding; please add a resource evaluation and report the hyperparameters.
[Table IV and Section IV-C] There are material inconsistencies in the results and comparison. Table III gives 94.87% accuracy and 0.945 AUC, while Table IV lists '95.0', 0.94 precision, 0.95 recall, and 0.95 F1 for the proposed work; the text also says precision, recall, and F1 are all 0.95. In addition, the reference labels do not match the bibliography: 'Neto et al. [50]' and 'Fernández Maimó et al. [56]' correspond to reference entries [50] (Tascı) and [56] (Urooj et al.), so the comparison table cannot be verified as written. Please correct the table, the references, and the unresolved 'Table ??' placeholder.

minor comments (5)

[Section III] The sentence 'The proposed methodology compromises the availability and reliability of IoMT systems' appears to be a wording error; the intended meaning is likely 'comprises' or 'addresses'.
[Sections II and V] The heading 'DDOS' in the Conclusion should be 'DDoS' for consistency, and 'electrocardiogram (ECK/EKG)' in Section II should be 'ECG'.
[Section IV-C] Figure 6 is referenced only as 'the confusion matrix 6,' and the caption lacks the actual matrix values; either add the values to the figure or replace the reference with a properly labeled 'Figure 6'.
[Throughout] The dataset name is abbreviated inconsistently as both 'CICIoMT2024' and 'CICIoMT24', and reference [49] has a malformed author field; standardize the abbreviation and fix the citation.
[Section IV-C] No code, random seeds, software versions, or hardware details are provided, so the experiments are not reproducible as reported; please include these details or a link to a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical ELM evaluation against an external benchmark, and its self-citations are background only.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical evaluation rather than a derivation. The central claim, that the proposed ELM detects DDoS attacks with roughly 95% accuracy at a low implementation budget, is supported by training and testing an ELM on the external CICIoMT2024 benchmark. The ELM equations in Section II are standard definitions from Huang et al. and are not used to define the evaluation result. The reported accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC-ROC are measured outputs, not quantities that are equivalent to the inputs by construction. The feature-selection and normalization steps are described before the 80/20 split in Section IV-B, which raises a potential data-leakage or correctness concern, but that is a methodological validity issue rather than circular reasoning: the test accuracy is not logically forced to equal any fitted parameter. The 'low implementation budget' claim is unmeasured rather than circular, since no resource metric is reported to compare against. The author self-citations ([11], [18], [39], [41], [42], [58]) provide background, prior applications, and activation-function references, but none of them is load-bearing for the reported detection performance. No derivation step reduces to its own input, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical objects or entities. The main load-bearing inputs are the public dataset and the ELM hyperparameters, which are not fully reported.

free parameters (3)

Correlation threshold for feature selection = 0.02
Chosen in Sec. IV-B to discard low-correlation features; the impact of this threshold on performance is not reported.
ELM hidden-layer size = not reported
Tuned via GridSearchCV in Sec. IV-C, but the final neuron count is not stated.
ELM activation function = not reported
Selected from tanh, sigmoid, RBF by grid search in Sec. IV-C, but the chosen function is not stated.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption CICIoMT2024 is a realistic and representative benchmark for IoMT DDoS attack detection.
Stated in Sec. IV-A; the value of the reported accuracy depends on this dataset reflecting real IoMT attack traffic.
domain assumption Feature selection and hyperparameter tuning do not use test-set information.
Implicit in Sec. IV-B/C. The text conducts correlation-based feature selection before the split, which would violate this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme Learning Machine Based System for DDoS Attacks Detections on IoMT Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4JYLREP

@misc{pith2026250705132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme Learning Machine Based System for DDoS Attacks Detections on IoMT Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4JYLREP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05132}
}

read the original abstract

The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) represents a paradigm shift in the healthcare sector, enabling the interconnection of medical devices, sensors, and systems to enhance patient monitoring, diagnosis, and management. The rapid evolution of IoMT presents significant benefits to the healthcare domains. However, there is a rapid increase in distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on the IoMT networks due to several vulnerabilities in the IoMT-connected devices, which negatively impact patients' health and can even lead to deaths. Thus, in this paper, we aim to save lives via investigating an extreme learning machine for detecting DDoS attacks on IoMT devices. The proposed approach achieves a high accuracy at a low implementation budget. Thus, it can reduce the implementation cost of the DDoS detection system, making the model capable of executing on the fog level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05132 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows an example of some IoMT devices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Security threats in IoMT network categorized by the threat to each of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA) triad. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The ELM topology. which architecture design consists of a single-hiddenlayer perceptron [34]. The ELM topology is shown at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The proposed ELM based approach to detect DDoS attacks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The confusion matrix of the ELM model for detecting DDoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[50]

Deep-learning-based approach for iot attack and mal- ware detection.,

B. Tas ¸cı, “Deep-learning-based approach for iot attack and mal- ware detection.,” Applied Sciences (2076-3417) , vol. 14, no. 18, 2024

work page 2024
[56]

Ransomware detection using the dynamic analysis and machine learning: A survey and research directions,

U. Urooj, B. A. S. Al-Rimy, A. Zainal, F. A. Ghaleb, and M. A. Rassam, “Ransomware detection using the dynamic analysis and machine learning: A survey and research directions,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 172, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Federated learn- ing for secure iomt-applications in smart healthcare systems: A comprehensive review,

S. Rani, A. Kataria, S. Kumar, and P. Tiwari, “Federated learn- ing for secure iomt-applications in smart healthcare systems: A comprehensive review,” Knowledge-based systems , vol. 274, p. 110658, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Inter- net of medical things (iomt): Applications, benefits and future challenges in healthcare domain.,

G. J. Joyia, R. M. Liaqat, A. Farooq, and S. Rehman, “Inter- net of medical things (iomt): Applications, benefits and future challenges in healthcare domain.,” J. Commun. , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 240–247, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Potential of internet of medical things (iomt) applications in building a smart health- care system: A systematic review,

R. Dwivedi, D. Mehrotra, and S. Chandra, “Potential of internet of medical things (iomt) applications in building a smart health- care system: A systematic review,” Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 302–318, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

A systematic review of security and privacy issues in the internet of medical things; the role of machine learning approaches,

S. S. Hameed, W. H. Hassan, L. A. Latiff, and F. Ghabban, “A systematic review of security and privacy issues in the internet of medical things; the role of machine learning approaches,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 7, p. e414, 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Internet of medical things: A systematic review,

C. Huang, J. Wang, S. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Internet of medical things: A systematic review,” Neurocomputing, p. 126719, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Intelligence in the internet of medical things era: A systematic review of current and future trends,

F. Al-Turjman, M. H. Nawaz, and U. D. Ulusar, “Intelligence in the internet of medical things era: A systematic review of current and future trends,” Computer Communications, vol. 150, pp. 644–660, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 59 references

[7]

Iot healthcare: Benefits, issues and challenges,

R. De Michele and M. Furini, “Iot healthcare: Benefits, issues and challenges,” in Proceedings of the 5th EAI international conference on smart objects and technologies for social good , pp. 160–164, 2019

2019
[8]

Healthcare 4.0: An insight of architecture, security requirements, pillars and applications,

D. Bajaj, B. Bhushan, and D. Yadav, “Healthcare 4.0: An insight of architecture, security requirements, pillars and applications,” Biomedical data mining for information retrieval: Methodologies, techniques and applications , pp. 103–129, 2021

2021
[9]

An overview of dis- tributed denial of service and internet of things in healthcare de- vices,

M. Khatkar, K. Kumar, and B. Kumar, “An overview of dis- tributed denial of service and internet of things in healthcare de- vices,” 2020 Research, Innovation, Knowledge Management and Technology Application for Business Sustainability (INBUSH) , pp. 44–48, 2020

2020
[10]

Internet of medical things (iomt) security and privacy: A survey of recent advances and enabling technologies,

A. Saxena and S. Mittal, “Internet of medical things (iomt) security and privacy: A survey of recent advances and enabling technologies,” in Proceedings of the 2022 Fourteenth Interna- tional Conference on Contemporary Computing , pp. 550–559, 2022

2022
[11]

A review on the security vulner- abilities of the iomt against malware attacks and ddos,

L. Dzamesi and N. Elsayed, “A review on the security vulner- abilities of the iomt against malware attacks and ddos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07703, 2025

2025 arXiv
[12]

Security in iomt communications: A survey,

D. Koutras, G. Stergiopoulos, T. Dasaklis, P. Kotzanikolaou, D. Glynos, and C. Douligeris, “Security in iomt communications: A survey,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 17, p. 4828, 2020

2020
[13]

Internet of things (iot) in healthcare market worth $861.3 billion by 2030

Grand View Research, Inc., “Internet of things (iot) in healthcare market worth $861.3 billion by 2030.” https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ internet-of-things-iot-in-healthcare-market-worth-861-3-billion-by-2030-grand-view-research-inc-301777182. html, 2023. Accessed: 2...

2023
[14]

Health workforce

World Health Organization, “Health workforce.” https://www. who.int/health-topics/health-workforce#tab=tab 1, 2025. Ac- cessed: 2025-07-03

2025
[15]

Security and privacy of internet of medical things: A contemporary review in the age of surveillance, botnets, and adversarial ml,

R. U. Rasool, H. F. Ahmad, W. Rafique, A. Qayyum, and J. Qadir, “Security and privacy of internet of medical things: A contemporary review in the age of surveillance, botnets, and adversarial ml,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications , vol. 201, p. 103332, 2022

2022
[16]

Protecting life-saving medical devices from cyber- attack,

A. Vakulov, “Protecting life-saving medical devices from cyber- attack,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 8–9, 2023

2023
[17]

A comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art on security and privacy issues in healthcare,

A. L ´opez Mart ´ınez, M. Gil P ´erez, and A. Ruiz-Mart ´ınez, “A comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art on security and privacy issues in healthcare,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1–38, 2023

2023
[18]

Cryptodna: A machine learning paradigm for ddos detection in healthcare iot, inspired by crypto jacking prevention models,

Z. ElSayed, A. Abdelgawad, and N. Elsayed, “Cryptodna: A machine learning paradigm for ddos detection in healthcare iot, inspired by crypto jacking prevention models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18549, 2025

2025 arXiv
[19]

A survey on security threats and countermeasures in internet of medical things (iomt),

M. Papaioannou, M. Karageorgou, G. Mantas, V . Sucasas, I. Es- sop, J. Rodriguez, and D. Lymberopoulos, “A survey on security threats and countermeasures in internet of medical things (iomt),” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies , vol. 33, no. 6, p. e4049, 2022

2022
[20]

An investigation and comparison of machine learning approaches for intrusion detection in iomt network,

A. Binbusayyis, H. Alaskar, T. Vaiyapuri, and M. Dinesh, “An investigation and comparison of machine learning approaches for intrusion detection in iomt network,” The Journal of Supercom- puting, vol. 78, no. 15, pp. 17403–17422, 2022

2022
[21]

Leveraging artificial intelligence for enhanced threat detection, response, and anomaly identification in resource-constrained iot networks,

L. Gudala, M. Shaik, S. Venkataramanan, and A. K. R. Sadhu, “Leveraging artificial intelligence for enhanced threat detection, response, and anomaly identification in resource-constrained iot networks,” Distributed Learning and Broad Applications in Sci- entific Research, vol....

2019
[22]

An approach towards the security management for sensitive medical data in the iomt ecosystem,

P. Chatterjee, D. Das, S. Banerjee, U. Ghosh, A. B. Mpembele, and T. Rogers, “An approach towards the security management for sensitive medical data in the iomt ecosystem,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth International Symposium on Theory, Algo- rithmic Foundations, and Pr...

2023
[23]

Artificial intelligence for iomt security: A review of intrusion detection systems, attacks, datasets and cloud–fog–edge architectures,

M. L. Hernandez-Jaimes, A. Martinez-Cruz, K. A. Ram ´ırez- Guti´errez, and C. Feregrino-Uribe, “Artificial intelligence for iomt security: A review of intrusion detection systems, attacks, datasets and cloud–fog–edge architectures,” Internet of Things , vol. 23, p. 100887, 2023

2023
[24]

Sdn orchestration to combat evolving cyber threats in internet of medical things (iomt),

S. Liaqat, A. Akhunzada, F. S. Shaikh, A. Giannetsos, and M. A. Jan, “Sdn orchestration to combat evolving cyber threats in internet of medical things (iomt),” Computer Communications , vol. 160, pp. 697–705, 2020

2020
[25]

An overview of extreme learning machine,

B. Deng, X. Zhang, W. Gong, and D. Shang, “An overview of extreme learning machine,” in 2019 4th international conference on control, robotics and cybernetics (CRC) , pp. 189–195, IEEE, 2019

2019
[26]

2024 global threat report

Elastic, “2024 global threat report.” https://www.elastic.co/ resources/security/report/global-threat-report, 2024. Accessed: 2025-07-03

2024
[27]

Cybersecurity in healthcare: a review of recent attacks and mitigation strategies,

E. A. Al-Qarni, “Cybersecurity in healthcare: a review of recent attacks and mitigation strategies,” International Journal of Ad- vanced Computer Science and Applications , vol. 14, no. 5, 2023

2023
[28]

Security and privacy issues in medical internet of things: overview, countermeasures, challenges and future directions,

M. Elhoseny, N. N. Thilakarathne, M. I. Alghamdi, R. K. Mahendran, A. A. Gardezi, H. Weerasinghe, and A. Welhenge, “Security and privacy issues in medical internet of things: overview, countermeasures, challenges and future directions,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 11645, 2021

2021
[29]

Security and privacy management in internet of medical things (iomt): A synthesis,

R. Hireche, H. Mansouri, and A.-S. K. Pathan, “Security and privacy management in internet of medical things (iomt): A synthesis,” Journal of cybersecurity and privacy , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 640–661, 2022

2022
[30]

Extreme learning machine: theory and applications,

G.-B. Huang, Q.-Y . Zhu, and C.-K. Siew, “Extreme learning machine: theory and applications,” Neurocomputing, vol. 70, no. 1-3, pp. 489–501, 2006

2006
[31]

Learning of a single-hidden layer feedforward neural network using an optimized extreme learning machine,

T. Matias, F. Souza, R. Ara ´ujo, and C. H. Antunes, “Learning of a single-hidden layer feedforward neural network using an optimized extreme learning machine,” Neurocomputing, vol. 129, pp. 428–436, 2014

2014
[32]

Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,

K. Hornik, “Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,” Neural networks, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 251–257, 1991

1991
[33]

Extreme learning machine and bayesian optimization-driven intelligent framework for iomt cyber-attack detection,

J. Nayak, S. K. Meher, A. Souri, B. Naik, and S. Vimal, “Extreme learning machine and bayesian optimization-driven intelligent framework for iomt cyber-attack detection,” The Journal of Supercomputing, vol. 78, no. 13, pp. 14866–14891, 2022

2022
[34]

A survey of memristive threshold logic circuits,

A. K. Maan, D. A. Jayadevi, and A. P. James, “A survey of memristive threshold logic circuits,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1734–1746, 2016

2016
[35]

The moore–penrose pseu- doinverse: A tutorial review of the theory,

J. C. A. Barata and M. S. Hussein, “The moore–penrose pseu- doinverse: A tutorial review of the theory,” Brazilian Journal of Physics, vol. 42, pp. 146–165, 2012

2012
[36]

Mdc-net: Intelligent malware detection and classification using extreme learning machine,

V . Reddy, I. Nagaraju, M. Gayatri, P. Dileep, P. Revathy, et al., “Mdc-net: Intelligent malware detection and classification using extreme learning machine,” in 2023 Third International Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Smart Energy (ICAIS) , pp. 1590–1594, IEEE, 2023

2023
[37]

Learning representations by back-propagating errors,

D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533–536, 1986

1986
[38]

Real-time patient-specific ecg classification by 1-d convolutional neural networks,

S. Kiranyaz, T. Ince, and M. Gabbouj, “Real-time patient-specific ecg classification by 1-d convolutional neural networks,” IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering , vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 664– 675, 2015

2015
[39]

Deep gated recurrent and convolutional network hybrid model for univariate time series classification,

N. Elsayed, A. S. Maida, and M. Bayoumi, “Deep gated recurrent and convolutional network hybrid model for univariate time series classification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.07683 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[40]

Privacy and security issues in iot healthcare applications for the disabled users a survey,

W. AL-mawee et al., “Privacy and security issues in iot healthcare applications for the disabled users a survey,” 2012

2012
[41]

Early stage diabetes prediction via extreme learning machine,

N. Elsayed, Z. ElSayed, and M. Ozer, “Early stage diabetes prediction via extreme learning machine,” in SoutheastCon 2022, pp. 374–379, IEEE, 2022

2022
[42]

A simple extreme learning machine model for detecting heart arrhythmia in the electro- cardiography signal,

N. Elsayed and Z. S. Zaghloul, “A simple extreme learning machine model for detecting heart arrhythmia in the electro- cardiography signal,” in 2020 IEEE 63rd International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS) , pp. 513–516, IEEE, 2020

2020
[43]

Deep extreme learning machine and its application in eeg classification,

S. Ding, N. Zhang, X. Xu, L. Guo, and J. Zhang, “Deep extreme learning machine and its application in eeg classification,” Math- ematical Problems in Engineering , vol. 2015, no. 1, p. 129021, 2015

2015
[44]

Extreme learning machine and adaptive sparse representation for image classification,

J. Cao, K. Zhang, M. Luo, C. Yin, and X. Lai, “Extreme learning machine and adaptive sparse representation for image classification,” Neural networks, vol. 81, pp. 91–102, 2016

2016
[45]

Extreme learning machine classification method for lower limb movement recognition,

Y . Kuang, Q. Wu, J. Shao, J. Wu, and X. Wu, “Extreme learning machine classification method for lower limb movement recognition,” Cluster Computing, vol. 20, pp. 3051–3059, 2017

2017
[46]

Image classification based on effective extreme learning machine,

F. Cao, B. Liu, and D. S. Park, “Image classification based on effective extreme learning machine,” Neurocomputing, vol. 102, pp. 90–97, 2013

2013
[47]

Extreme learning machines for intrusion detection,

C. Cheng, W. P. Tay, and G.-B. Huang, “Extreme learning machines for intrusion detection,” in The 2012 International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) , pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2012

2012
[48]

An intrusion detection system using network traffic profiling and online sequential extreme learning machine,

R. Singh, H. Kumar, and R. Singla, “An intrusion detection system using network traffic profiling and online sequential extreme learning machine,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 42, no. 22, pp. 8609–8624, 2015

2015
[49]

Ciciomt2024: Attack vectors in healthcare devices-a multi-protocol dataset for assessing iomt device security,

S. Dadkhah, E. C. P. Neto, R. Ferreira, R. C. Molokwu, S. Sadeghi, and A. Ghorbani, “Ciciomt2024: Attack vectors in healthcare devices-a multi-protocol dataset for assessing iomt device security,” Raphael and Chukwuka Molokwu, Reginald and Sadeghi, Somayeh and Ghorbani, Ali, C...

2024
[51]

Net- work intrusion detection system using convolutional neural net- works: Nids-dl-cnn for iot security,

K. Kharoubi, S. Cherbal, D. Mechta, and A. Gawanmeh, “Net- work intrusion detection system using convolutional neural net- works: Nids-dl-cnn for iot security,” Cluster Computing, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 219, 2025

2025
[52]

Security at the edge for resource-limited iot devices,

D. Canavese, L. Mannella, L. Regano, and C. Basile, “Security at the edge for resource-limited iot devices,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 590, 2024

2024
[53]

A cutting-edge deep learning method for enhancing iot security,

N. Ansar, M. S. Ansari, M. Sharique, A. Khatoon, M. A. Malik, and M. M. Siddiqui, “A cutting-edge deep learning method for enhancing iot security,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12400 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[54]

Enhanced anomaly detection in iomt networks using ensemble ai models on the ciciomt2024 dataset,

P. Chandekar, M. Mehta, and S. Chandan, “Enhanced anomaly detection in iomt networks using ensemble ai models on the ciciomt2024 dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11854 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[55]

Enhancing iot security with cnn and lstm-based intrusion detection systems,

A. Gueriani, H. Kheddar, and A. C. Mazari, “Enhancing iot security with cnn and lstm-based intrusion detection systems,” in 2024 6th International Conference on Pattern Analysis and Intelligent Systems (PAIS), pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2024

2024
[57]

Z-score normalization, hubness, and few-shot learning,

N. Fei, Y . Gao, Z. Lu, and T. Xiang, “Z-score normalization, hubness, and few-shot learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 142–151, 2021

2021
[58]

Empirical activation function effects on unsupervised convolutional lstm learning,

N. Elsayed, A. S. Maida, and M. Bayoumi, “Empirical activation function effects on unsupervised convolutional lstm learning,” in 2018 IEEE 30th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), pp. 336–343, IEEE, 2018

2018
[59]

Radial basis functions,

M. D. Buhmann, “Radial basis functions,” Acta numerica, vol. 9, pp. 1–38, 2000

2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [50]

Deep-learning-based approach for iot attack and mal- ware detection.,

B. Tas ¸cı, “Deep-learning-based approach for iot attack and mal- ware detection.,” Applied Sciences (2076-3417) , vol. 14, no. 18, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [56]

Ransomware detection using the dynamic analysis and machine learning: A survey and research directions,

U. Urooj, B. A. S. Al-Rimy, A. Zainal, F. A. Ghaleb, and M. A. Rassam, “Ransomware detection using the dynamic analysis and machine learning: A survey and research directions,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 172, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [1]

Federated learn- ing for secure iomt-applications in smart healthcare systems: A comprehensive review,

S. Rani, A. Kataria, S. Kumar, and P. Tiwari, “Federated learn- ing for secure iomt-applications in smart healthcare systems: A comprehensive review,” Knowledge-based systems , vol. 274, p. 110658, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [2]

Inter- net of medical things (iomt): Applications, benefits and future challenges in healthcare domain.,

G. J. Joyia, R. M. Liaqat, A. Farooq, and S. Rehman, “Inter- net of medical things (iomt): Applications, benefits and future challenges in healthcare domain.,” J. Commun. , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 240–247, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [3]

Potential of internet of medical things (iomt) applications in building a smart health- care system: A systematic review,

R. Dwivedi, D. Mehrotra, and S. Chandra, “Potential of internet of medical things (iomt) applications in building a smart health- care system: A systematic review,” Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 302–318, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [4]

A systematic review of security and privacy issues in the internet of medical things; the role of machine learning approaches,

S. S. Hameed, W. H. Hassan, L. A. Latiff, and F. Ghabban, “A systematic review of security and privacy issues in the internet of medical things; the role of machine learning approaches,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 7, p. e414, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [5]

Internet of medical things: A systematic review,

C. Huang, J. Wang, S. Wang, and Y . Zhang, “Internet of medical things: A systematic review,” Neurocomputing, p. 126719, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [6]

Intelligence in the internet of medical things era: A systematic review of current and future trends,

F. Al-Turjman, M. H. Nawaz, and U. D. Ulusar, “Intelligence in the internet of medical things era: A systematic review of current and future trends,” Computer Communications, vol. 150, pp. 644–660, 2020

work page 2020